Hi Patrick,
Patrick Corliss [patrick&#167;quad.net.au] wrote:
> Hi Vic
>
> You have said there should be "open slather" with a whole load of new 2LDs
> issued. That's two different points joined together in the same argument.
yes but all part of the same principals of freedom and liberty and greater choice.
> Let's agree that there should be a whole load of new 2LDs. Why not? Does
> that, in and of itself, necessarily mean that there should be "open slather"
> in the allocation of domain names?
see below.
> I can visualise one without the other. I'm sure you can too.
>
> As I understand it, the Names Panel is looking at the existing policies and
> asking whether they should be relaxed. Most people I've spoken too happen to
> think they should. But you cannot honestly say that restricted domain names
> don't have *value*. Which means there is a question of equitable allocation.
that was my point that the value is *not* part of the equation of
equitable allocation.
that the value is based on an artificial limitation on the supply side.
thats the mistake I was refering to, that in the past and that some people
still think the allocators should limit/interfer/regulate/participate in
the supply value of names. thats just not right.
> If lots of people want something in a Grace Brothers sale, do you really think
> you should just open the doors and have a stampede? With people screaming,
> crying and fighting over a new suit for $10? That's the *landrush* argument.
yep. its the fairest thing to do. its happened overseas and nothing melted.
> It's not being *socialist* -- it's the plain old Aussie sense of fair play.
>
> I personally would pay $5,000 each for three restricted domain names that I
> want to use. I'd even borrow the money if I had to. And I am certain that
> others would be prepared to pay much more at an auction. It's really not an
> unrealistic scenario and there's plenty of precedent for having auctions.
because you are prejudicing those that had the idea to use a specific
restricted name in the past for those that have greater financial ability
to purchase them now. thats why an auction would be unfair.
lottery can be stacked by multiple bids, leaving first come first served.
AUda obviously will ensure that no registrars stack the outcome in preference of
any particular customer or themselves.
> Isn't even slightly possible that this money could be used in some way to help
> finance a better internet? Or do I just pay $140 each and think myself lucky?
the key word is "think", there is no way to quantify the value or your potential
gain till you realise it. you may blow $15k on domains and fail to market them
properly against a non generic domain and hence were not "lucky".
financing a better internet while a noble cause is outside of AUda charter.
> Of course, your two points are related in that a whole load of new 2LDs would
> certainly lower the value of the domain names I want to register. Which is an
> interesting balance of supply and demand. But I'd still be of the opinion
> that, at least for a time, their value would be significantly greater than
> $140 each.
perhaps, but in a competitive registrar situation I bet youll find
at least one registrar willing to sell them to you for $30. the perceived
value is based on an artificial limit to the supply side.
> The trouble is that new 2LDs are a separate item on the agenda of the Names
> Policy Panel report. So it may be more effective to separate the two issues.
>
> What do you think?
sure. my thinking is that competition should come first,
then release of all 2lds and release of fenced off domains.
Vic